They? You mean atheists would be less self serving and promote self determination in the countries under current US foreign policy?
Religulous
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
They? You mean atheists would be less self serving and promote self determination in the countries under current US foreign policy?
But, it is relevant when you actually do your homework rather than making false assumptions.
Considering that I knew all of that already, I don't see your point. You can use all the language you like, but it doesn't mean this nation was founded on religion. We don't sanction nor sponsor a state religion, so we weren't founded on it. And neither was our society.
I can tell that you're going to try to follow me around and take your best shots, but considering that your shots are most often completely off the mark, and sometimes not even regarding the same subject, so maybe you shouldn't even bother.
Your criticism of secularism as the source of unfair trade practices is ridiculous. Religion does not ensure fairness, indeed it often codifies unfairness. Secularism has led to societies that sometimes do unfair things, but not as a result of lacking religion!
So, is Obama a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist?
Keep rolling your eyes. All you do is make people not want to post on these forums with your degrading, holier-than-thou posts.
Atheism is for the individual while religion is for the individual, the family, the community and the society. You cannot expect atheism to provide anything but self serving individuals who want it that way
That's the most ignorant thing I've read here today. You assume religion benefits the individual, family, community, and society, and assume that an atheist cannot be a family-oriented, community-oriented, moral person.
[/i][flames/insults deleted][/i]
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, you are being ignorant. You assume that the secular aspects of religion cannot be easily replaced by anything. It's not replaced by atheism, of course, because atheism is only a philosophical premise. I suggested secular humanism, but then you attacked atheism again. What's wrong with secular humanism? It's like religion without the supernatural aspects.
Nothing wrong with "secular" "humanism" except that most atheists frequently assume freedom of religion is equivalent to freedom from religion.
There are some aspects of religion that do not belong in a secular government, but that's besides the point. Philosophies of governance like secular humanism can certainly replace Theocracy.
See? Atheists do not talk about secular humanism as inclusive, they always want to replace and remove :shrug:
It's an acknowledgement of the difference between a personal religion and public policy. Just like freedom isn't the freedom to kill someone (but i thought freedom was inclusive of everything).
).
Moreover, your post was besides the point once again. You asked if society could be based on atheism, I said no, since atheism isn't a method of organizing society. Could atheists create a method of organizing society? Yes, they could.
Would it be a method of organizing society that a religious person would approve of? It could, as long as they don't insist on being too fundamentalist about it. But this is a secondary question.
Would it be a method of organizing society that a religious person would approve of? It could, as long as they don't insist on being too fundamentalist about it. But this is a secondary question.
Based on what?
It's an acknowledgement of the difference between a personal religion and public policy. Just like freedom isn't the freedom to kill someone (but i thought freedom was inclusive of everything
How is removal of religion a difference between personal opinion and public policy for an atheist?
Atheists could organize a society based on Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Monarchy, or any other political philosophy.
Secularism isn't removal of religion, but if the society was all atheist, there would be no religious references in public life. When there are still religious people, as in the USA, some comprimises must be made. For instance, which religious symbol should be displayed in congress? Which holidays will be public ones? So you can see that freedom of religion includes withholding the religious practices you might like to see in public life out of deference to religions other than your own.
Are there any atheists making these decisions? Or offering suggestions on religious holidays which should be included to accommodate various religious beliefs? Could you give me examples of athiests accommodating religions in a pluralistic society and as a concession for "secular" "humanism" [which I consider as a giant farce]?
Do you mean in some theoretical scenario, or in real life? In the USA, there are very few atheists in politics.
This assumes that goodwill and the group mentality is not the result of thousands of years of evolution as opposed to being magically imbued. Flawed logic there SAM.
All you have to do is show me a society that developed the same way in the absence of religion.
Or respond to either of these
Or respond to either of these